Clear VIPMP docs cache

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states that it clears the cache, which aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It adds that clearing can be scoped to a specific path, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: two sentences plus an Args section. It front-loads the main action and uses clear language. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the presence of annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains the two modes of operation (specific path vs. entire cache) and the parameter's role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description's Args section fully explains the 'path' parameter: it is optional, defaults to None, and its effect (invalidate specific entry vs. clear all). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool clears the docs cache, with the option to invalidate a specific path or wipe the entire cache. This distinguishes it from siblings like warm_vipmp_cache (which warms cache) and vipmp_cache_stats (which reads stats).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool: to clear the cache, either entirely or for a specific doc path. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context implies it's for invalidation rather than warming. A clear usage context is provided without exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.